June 5, 2009

• Question 145 - How is Genesis to be Interpreted? part 2

  Question 145 - How is Genesis to be Interpreted? part 2

   

  I read through the comments of your friend and I find that he has misunderstood the point. First of all, is Robert a faithful and practicing Catholic?

   

  R. Sungenis: Seth, first of all, I don't think it's proper to begin your remarks by implying that I am not following the Catholic faith. Michael Korn said you do the same to him when he disagrees with you. I think you ought to refrain from this approach. It does neither of us any good.

   

  As for who I am, perhaps you are too new or too young, but your mentor Scott Hahn and I have known each other for quite a long time. He wrote the Foreword to my best-selling book, Not By Faith Alone, published in 1997. I have also published many other books and have been on EWTN several times. So yes, I am a practicing Catholic.

   

  I am simply representing the Church's teaching; namely, that it is not forbidden to accept certain forms of evolutionary theory.

   

  R. Sungenis: I never said it was "forbidden," Seth. I said it was not correct. There are many things the Church doesn't forbid, but that doesn't mean they are correct.

   

  The Church does not deny the possibility of a literal interpretation of the Creation account, nor does it deny the possibility of evolution (at least to some degree).

   

  R. Sungenis: That's right. The Church does not deny the possibility of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but unfortunately, I didn't see that qualification in your reply to Michael, nor did I see any attempt on your part to interpret Genesis 1 literally. What I saw was a concerted effort to avoid a literal interpretation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

   

  As for the Church teaching that evolution is a possible way to interpret Genesis 1, I know that is what some hierarchs give as their opinion today (e.g., Cardinal Schonborn), but I don't know where the Catholic Church officially teaches that position. If you know of such an official teaching, I would like to see it.

   

  My point in interpreting Genesis is simply that any scientific claims are secondary. The intention of the text is to show creation as a cosmic temple, and humanity as a high priest in covenant with God.

   

  R. Sungenis: Although a "cosmic temple" is certainly a plausible interpretation of Genesis 1, how is it that you come to the position that it is "the intention of the text" to do so? How do you know what the single "intent" of the author is? All you have before you is the Geneis text, and since you have already admitted that the text can be interpreted literally, how do you know a literal interpretation is not the prmary "intent" of the author? Is it because you believe, scientifically, that the earth cannot come before the sun, or that there cannot be two light sources? If so, you would need to prove those stipulations first before you claim that a literal interpretation is not the primary intent of the author.

  I see why you are having so much trouble now. Unfortunately, your friend Robert seems to be afraid science will compromise the faith. I wonder what he might have thought when the research of Galileo was in question.

   

  R. Sungenis: Again, Seth, you need to stop making these kinds of allegations, especially since you don't know me. For those who know me, they know very well that I am neither "afraid of science" nor am willing to "compromise the faith." I was a physics major in college and I have been around science my whole life. If you read the piece I sent to Michael you would have seen that it is only false science that I disdain, not true science. I hold to science that is provable and substantiated by the evidence, not science that is merely a propaganda tool for atheists. True science does not support evolution; it totally denies it. Unfortunately, it seems that you and the St. Paul Center have only been introduced to the former science. I've been studying it for the last 35 years and have published many papers and a couple of books on it.

   

  As for Galileo, if you want to know what I believe about that "research," I've written a two volume work of over 1000 pages on it, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right. My co-author has a Ph.D. in Physics with a specialty in General Relativity, and I converted him away from it. If you want to see my book on Galileo, I sent a copy of it, upon his request, to Scott Hahn several years ago. Perhaps you can ask him to borrow it for a while.

   

  Personally, I do not find the claims to evolution satisfactory; though I am equally unconvinced that the Creation narrative must be interpreted literally.

   

  R. Sungenis: I understand your position, Seth. All I would encourage you to do, however, is have the proper basis for your objection. As it stands, I think it is lacking. Our tradition, our Catechism, Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus, and many other Catholic sources, teach that Scripture must be interpreted literally unless by reason or necessity it cannot be thus interpreted. What "reason or necessity" is there not to at least hold the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 as your working interpretation? If you already find evolution "unsatisfactory," I can't think of any "reasons or necessity" to dismiss a literal interpretation.

   

  If you want to hold that Genesis 1 is also describing a "cosmic temple," that is well and good. But you can have your cake and eat it too, that is, Genesis 1 can be interpreted as six literal days, and also a description, on a more symbolic level, of God's cosmic temple. Believe me, I am well familiar with the "cosmic temple" dimension of Genesis 1. Hahn and I both learned it at the Protestant seminaries we used to attend (he went to Gordon Conwell and I went to Westminster Theological).

   

  But when the "cosmic temple" interpretation is used to replace the literal interpretation, then, I believe, you've crossed the line into error. Until Darwin came along 150 years ago, there was a consensus in the Church that Genesis 1 was to be interpreted literally. That is something to think about.

   

  Honestly, I think Genesis offers us something far greater than scientific evidence (even if some can be found therein), and I also appreciate the Church's silence in regard to a full articulation of this mystery. I am not afraid of the tension this mystery holds us in because I am firmly convinced that no amount of scientific evidence can disprove a faith that worships the Creator of Scientific Truth. Genesis is the heart of covenant theology and human psychology (see Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II); it is far more valuable as a theology text, than it ever could be as a science book.

   

  In Christ,

   

  Seth Evangelho 

   

  R. Sungenis: I don't think it is necessary to make the Bible compete between theological truth and scientific truth. The raw fact is, whatever the Bible touches upon, be it theology, science, math, history, culture, genealogies, time, distance, or whatever, it is all true and trustworthy. That being the case, if I or you want to know how this universe started, and how the sun got into the sky, and why the moon goes around the earth, and why there is water on earth and in space, and if I want to know why pigs can't mate with reptiles, or any number of "scientific" issues that the Bible touches upon, we can depend upon the Bible to give us the basic rudimentary truth. After that, man can build his formulas and equations all he wants, because the basic framework has been given to him from God. Unless I have some indisputable proof from science that my literal interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, then I am bound to interpret it literally. As such, the earth was created before the sun, and popular science has no way to disprove that.

   

  If you find that hard to believe, is it any easier to believe that when Jesus said "This is my body," that the literal bread that you see after those words is now Jesus in the flesh and the bread is not really there, only in appearance? You see, Seth, our whole approach to Scripture from the beginning of the Church was to take the Bible literally and then formulate our theology around it, not the other way around. If we were to adopt popular science as our guide, we would have never interpreted Matthew 26:26 to be teaching transubstantiation. Rather, the Church took by faith that Jesus meant what he said, literally, and from there the whole Church was built. Why should this hermeneutic cease when we come to Genesis 1? Because Darwin suggested that we do so?? I think not. And I think your better sense will tell you the same.

  God be with you, Seth.

   

  Robert Sungenis

  • 1:17 am
  • 1 Comment